controlled break poll

[badbullgator]

So, basically, it can be okay to talk to your dog in seniors and not get an immediate dq..but rather you can dinged on trainability. If you have a REALLY good dog, then perhaps as a handler you are wise to use this to your advantage.

I guess to me the rule is more cut and dry..and people should train for it...no talking to the dog to 'steady' them. If the dog breaks and you can get him under control, that shows 'some' trainability.
If the dog is 'dancing' at the line and the handler tells him 'sit', then as a judge do you know how much trainability the dog has (with regards to steadiness)?

Personally, I would not want to take the chance of talking to my dog and be dropped for it, or have it added to a low trainability score.

Juli

For me as a judge it is not that you can. I would drop you if I thought you were doing it on purpose and you knew better. For me it is more as described in the other thread, a new handler forgetting they cannot talk or an actual controled break (not really talking infraction). If you are just talking for the sake of talking, restraining, or training you stand a good chance of getting dropped. It is much harder to drop someone because they let one word slip, it happens to the best of us

[Steve]

I am a trial judge, but the rules are basically the same for a minor stake.

I am not there to judge intent. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the dog/handler and score it as a controlled break. I wouldn't give a stern warning either. Handlers should know the rules unless they are new and then I would kindly explain it to them.

[John Gassner]

I'm with Howard and Steve. I can't vote because I would not do either of your two options.

John

[Bubba]

This is really pretty simple. When the dog stands up or creeps a ways towards the fall it is basically a trainability issue and can be dealt with on that basis. At some point the creep becomes a safety issue and then we have another issue but that isn't the issue at hand here.
The point is that when the dog stood up - the handler for whatever reason (and there really is only one - he knew or suspected that the dog was going to break) said something (doesn't really matter what it was) that served to prevent the dog from further actions.
It isn't a controlled break until the dog manifests the intent to make the retrieve and is successfully stopped. BUUUUUUUUUuttttttt the handler -by telling the dog to stop that crap took the pencil out of the judges hands. He communicated by his actions that the dogs behavior was unacceptable and acted to stop that behavior - and that is a problem. At that point the judges have a decision to make:
1. The handler stopped a break in the birth stages - controlled break rules apply
2. Handler broke the "No talking" rule - immediate disqualification

In the Master stake it reall doesn't matter - no difference both are disqualifying.

In the Senior stake there is room for "SOME" allowances we are expecting a few rough edges.

Either way - I would have to see it to judge it.

Lesson is that unless the dog actually bolts- shut up and trust her to remember her manners.

It's a LOT easier with /pauls dogs - once they decide to go it's all over regards

Bubba

[Kristie Wilder]

Carry the dog without the "stern warning"... This is such old news. It happens all the time in senior and dogs don't get dropped for it, nor should they. It's a controlled break, period.

[Gun_Dog2002]

This is really pretty simple. When the dog stands up or creeps a ways towards the fall it is basically a trainability issue and can be dealt with on that basis. At some point the creep becomes a safety issue and then we have another issue but that isn't the issue at hand here.
The point is that when the dog stood up - the handler for whatever reason (and there really is only one - he knew or suspected that the dog was going to break) said something (doesn't really matter what it was) that served to prevent the dog from further actions.
It isn't a controlled break until the dog manifests the intent to make the retrieve and is successfully stopped. BUUUUUUUUUuttttttt the handler -by telling the dog to stop that crap took the pencil out of the judges hands. He communicated by his actions that the dogs behavior was unacceptable and acted to stop that behavior - and that is a problem. At that point the judges have a decision to make:
1. The handler stopped a break in the birth stages - controlled break rules apply
2. Handler broke the "No talking" rule - immediate disqualification

In the Master stake it reall doesn't matter - no difference both are disqualifying.

In the Senior stake there is room for "SOME" allowances we are expecting a few rough edges.

Either way - I would have to see it to judge it.

Lesson is that unless the dog actually bolts- shut up and trust her to remember her manners.

It's a LOT easier with /pauls dogs - once they decide to go it's all over regards

Bubba

Thats because I've trained them not to break, but if you do you better do it with great style....

So, if a dog moves while the birds are going down and the handler makes an effort to stop the dog, should I assume the handler thought he was making an attempt to retrieve?

/Paul

[DarrinGreene]

what are extraordinary circumstances?

Safety issue or potential dog fight with an honor dog that broke.

[BuddyJ]

I am wondering how the dog could have a controlled break if he was already released by the judges?

Right Howard, I would have probably let that go as a re heel and see what happened in the next series.

[steve schreiner]

Carry the dog without the "stern warning"... This is such old news. It happens all the time in senior and dogs don't get dropped for it, nor should they. It's a controlled break, period.

Agreed....
In reference to those that mentioned the issue of a dog being dropped for a controlled break after the dog had been released by the judges....there is no break after the dog is released (judge says # or dog) and this causes the dog to leave ,the dog has not broken...For those that say ,you didn't release your dog ...I always say the dogs name when the judge looks at me when this happens ... Some times I'm a little slow ...Steve S

[KwickLabs]

Having run about twenty Senior tests, here's what I've learned.

Most every handlers' meeting had a discussion about NOT talking to the dog on the line after calling for the birds. Senior judges almost always discussed the "talking at the line rule". For most, it was "cut and dried"....."You are not supposed to!" There were a few times I saw a more lenient "You most likely will be disqualified" actually applied which means sometimes (maybe not). Most often it was "nervous first timers" that displayed a sincere "oops" in their demeanor. In essence, using this poll to "test the waters" to see how much you leeway you might have may prove risky.

For me at the line, I'm not supposed to talk to my dog after I call for the birds....period. I can after the judge releases the dog and most judges do that by quietly say "dog".

Now their judging sheets reveal the call name of every dog which means that if she/he goes on "dog" the judge immediately knows there is a training issue, but that's not the judges' problem.

I remember many years ago, running a HRC test down in Missouri (long trip) and my young dog was just terrible in the first series. I moped around deciding whether or not to just pick up and drive home. I was tired and sat down next to an older trainer. We got to talking....actually, I was whining....and he simply said "Remember this when you go to the line"...."Dogs run, handlers handle, and judges judge." "If you are still in it just make the judges decide." We nailed the second series and passed.

If you let fido go on "dog", he probably will do it pretty regularly unless you decide to deal with it right then and there. The rules say you don't have to and maybe that pass or ribbon is really important. You might even think about correcting the problem later in training. You have a choice.

I only had that happen once (going on "Dog") and he went about five quick hops before I called him back. Judge said, You didn't have to do that." and I said, "Oh yes I did."

I have a problem with the ethics of trying to see just how much you can get away with and still pass a test. I voted DQ'd.